Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. later confined Moses H. Cone's “policy favoring arbitration” language to equal enforcement of arbitration contracts and rejected its use to create arbitration-preferring procedural rules. The other reviewed opinions applied Moses H. Cone's arbitration and abstention rules positively, distinguished its facts, rejected adverse arguments, or repeated history parentheticals reporting another authority's act. Later courts' copied “superseded by statute on other grounds” notations are not duplicated as new treatments.
9,605 later cases cite Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.; 228 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by Statute
-
The Seventh Circuit held that 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1) displaced Moses H. Cone's principal holding permitting an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order favoring arbitration.
Bradford-Scott Data Corp. v. Physician Computer Network, Inc. · Seventh Circuit · filed
Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act replaces the unlamented Enelow-Ettelson doctrine, which was overruled by Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988), with a simpler approach under which anti-arbitration decisions are immediately appealable, while orders enforcing arbitration clauses may be appealed only following the close of the entire case. ... The premise may be correct, see Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 21, 103 S.Ct. 927, 939, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (though § 16(b)(1) upsets the principal holding of Moses Cone), but the conclusion does not follow.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Supreme Court confined Moses H. Cone's “policy favoring arbitration” language, holding that it requires equal enforcement of arbitration contracts but does not authorize arbitration-preferring procedural rules.
Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
But the FAA’s “policy favoring arbitration” does not authorize federal courts to invent special, arbitration-preferring procedural rules. Moses H. Cone, 460 U. S., at 24. Our frequent use of that phrase connotes something different. “Th[e] policy,” we have explained, “is merely an acknowledgment of the FAA’s commitment to overrule the judiciary’s longstanding refusal to enforce agreements to arbitrate and to place such agreements upon the same footing as other contracts.” ... The federal policy is about treating arbitration contracts like all others, not about fostering arbitration.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace